So John, I'll actually disagree with you. Too much flexibility certainly makes it confusing, especially for new pilots. What is the right strategy for a given type of task? Not everyone who comes to our races can run a "real time stochastic models" in their heads :-) I can absolutely see where even a long MAT introduces some challenging considerations that may seem unfair or overwhelming to newer pilots.

If we are going to try out novel or unusual variations, then I do think we would want to make sure that pilots are thoroughly briefed before hand, and I'm not sure that every CD is equipped to do that...

P3



On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 1:43:40 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
My main objection to unrestricted MATs is that they are boring. The right strategy is to find one good area of sky and then plow around it over and over again. If it gets weak, come back home and stick to the 5 turnpoints near the home airport so you make sure not to land out. Often you can win the day with something more daring, but it's not worth the risk.

They have their place. A bunch of us got about 1000k out of a ridge task at Mifflin. It could not have been done by anything else, and a pity to waste the chance on a short AT because some rule book said we had to.

Like UH says. Talk to the CD and task advisers. CDs and task advisers, talk to the pilots.

We have a huge buffet of tasks available: Long MATs, short MATs, MATs with restricted turnpoints, (nobody has called a three turnpoint only MAT. Might be fun!); TATs with a few big areas ("OLC") TATs with a many small areas, (very close to handicapped assigned tasks), and the AT. We ought to be able to keep people happy!

John Cochrane